From where I’m sitting …

Private eye

Philip Davies

Housebuilders co-operated fully with Kate Barker’s investigation into housing supply and now want to see the government put her conclusions into action so they can deliver the homes we so desperately need.

The current revision of PPG3 does not take on board Barker’s ideas of applying design coding or offering greater flexibility. Instead, it seeks to further constrain the activities of housebuilders by giving councils greater control over the mix of homes built on a site. The present PPG3 is already distorting the market through its emphasis on building apartments and townhouses to achieve higher densities. Housebuilders need to respond to the market and these homes are not ideal for many of our customers. We do not want to be told what to build in a constantly changing market.

The Thames Gateway must also be addressed. There are plans for the area to have 200,000 new homes, as well as the accompanying shops, offices and amenities. But the area will not achieve its potential unless flood defences are improved. The Environment Agency is calling for the height of flood defences to be increased, but the costs for meeting this will be vast. Someone will have to pick up the bill and few developers will be prepared to.

Add to this the fact that infrastructure in the region is poor, and it is clear that the government must come up with a funded action plan to make the Gateway a more attractive prospect for developers and homebuyers.

I would also like to see the government help would-be homebuyers differently. Initiatives such as the £60,000 house have more to do with spin than really solving a national problem. Yes, a £60,000 house can be built, but the redundant NHS sites that John Prescott is proposing to build them on will not come forward for development for some time. Labour’s plans to expand its HomeBuy scheme are a much better way to help first-time buyers and more initiatives of this type would be welcome. Government should also make stamp duty an incremental tax in the same way as income tax.

The industry should and does work with the government to generate affordable housing, but housebuilders are being squeezed to provide ever greater quantities. To demand that we provide 30% affordable housing on our sites is entirely feasible, but once the target hits 40% it becomes unrealistic.

30% affordable housing is reasonable, 40% is not

Clearly, the new government has a lot to do. Only time will tell if it can create a climate in which developers can significantly increase output.

Public eye

Mark Rogers

Whichever of the three main parties wins on 5 May we will want to work with it. The key question is: how will the next government ensure that there is sufficient affordable housing available in the future?

I would like to see a commitment from government for longer-term grant funding. This would enable registered social landlords to drive down costs through more efficient procurement. RSLs have demonstrated that we can operate in a rapidly changing and uncertain environment, but we could achieve more with more continuity.

If government invited us to the table at an early stage of developing policies, we would be better able to transform its vision into solutions on the ground. We could then do what we do best: providing and managing homes where people want to live.

One thing that hampers our delivery of schemes is the planning process. Ensuring that there is an adequate supply of land coming through for affordable housing is a challenge and should be a high priority for government.

We’ll embrace moves to extend right-to-buy to tenants

We thrive on competition and recognise the value for money that may result from giving grants to developers. However, we strongly believe that all parties in receipt of public funding should be subject to the same performance monitoring.

A holistic approach to policy must also be a priority. Public funding streams should be focused on creating sustainable communities, rather than reflecting departmental objectives within Whitehall.

We like the concept of the planned growth areas and see these as an opportunity to meet housing needs. However the government needs to fund the necessary infrastructure to support this growth.

We need to consider how the sector can provide a flexible range of housing solutions to meet the needs of our customers and how it can continue to develop and meet their aspirations.

We will embrace moves to extend right-to-buy to housing association tenants but would ask the government to have due regard to RSLs’ business plans when considering this. More flexibility in home ownership initiatives would help, and a simple but effective step would be to widen the definition of key workers.

RSLs have come of age. To survive and prosper we have had to become well run (social) businesses. We are used to managing risk and using cross-subsidy to realise our corporate objectives. The regulatory regime needs to reflect this, striking a balance between the need to protect public funds and the need for flexibility and innovation.